Radhika Devi vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Radhika Devi seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.345 of 2025, under Sections 110, 123, 305, 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 10.9.2025. It is submitted that five accused persons are named in the FIR, whereas applicant is not named in the FIR which has been registered with the allegation that applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have formed a fake family, wherein applicant was mother of co-accused Sonal (bride), who performed fake marriage with informant and after solemnizing marriage with the informant she had intoxicated the family members of informant and flee away from house of informant after looting Rs.1 lakh, ring, mangalsutra etc. It is further submitted that applicant has only performed role of a mother of co-accused Sonal but neither she has caused any injury to the informant or his family members nor taken any benefit in the present case. It is argued that false recovery of aadhar card, one mobile, Rs.2000/- was shown from the possession of applicant. It is further argued that co-accused Soni @ Nisha, who has performed role of sister of co-accused Sonal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed in

¶11

BAIL No. 42976 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41976 of 2025 and parity is sought in the matter. It is next argued that applicant is a lady having no criminal antecedents to her credit. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, she does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, she may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)

¶20

BAIL No. 42976 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against her.

¶23

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her strictly, in accordance with law.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶25

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶26

December 12, 2025 RA

¶27

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Radhika Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddu Singh Parmar Alias Guddu Fauji vs State of U.P.

Mohit Moral vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P.

Jwala Yadav @ Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Santara vs State of U.P.

Atul Kulshreshtha vs State of U.P.